What Republicans Must Do to Win in 2012!

In his article, Jay Cost raises other points that draw upon what Olsen argues. He points to the need to win the allegiance of working-class voters, those who are “less concerned about Washington’s inability to curb the growth of government than they are about Washington’s inability to spur the growth of wages.” In other words, the growing inflationary spiral combined with the falling power of wages that have remained stagnant has to be better addressed by Republicans.

Going over the history of the Democratic Party, Cost — who is writing a new book about the Democrats — talks about how the Democrats changed in the 60s, from a New Deal-Fair Deal party to that of a group representing the “post-material left,” a body comprised of a “white, comfortable middle-class movement that was focused on quality-of-life issues rather than on raising average Americans’ standard of living.” Their rise coincided with the collapse of the old once powerful bloc of organized industrial labor, which forced the Democrats to once concentrate on bread-and-butter issues. The unions that now support the Democrats back statist programs that reinforce the power of government sector unions — quite different from the union movement that backed the party in FDR’s day.

Obama, he points out, was the man who, in his own persona, represented “the post-materialist factions of the Democratic Party,” symbolized by the left-wing milieu of Hyde Park, the ACORN cadre and the community organizing community, and the government unions like the SEIU. In the 2008 primary, Hillary Clinton represented “the old Democratic forces, like the white working-class voters of the industrial Midwest,” once central to the old New Deal-Fair Deal coalition that once put FDR and Harry Truman in office.

When Obama won, he and Nancy Pelosi “extended the reach of government, paying only lip service to curbing the deficit or spurring economic growth.” That means, Cost writes, that “addressing the nation’s economic problems will, by default, become the responsibility of Republicans.” Cost adds that if “America is to have any hope of resolving our fiscal crisis and restarting economic growth, the GOP will have to persuade voters that it deserves significant majorities in Washington.”

The question is how to achieve that end, and it will not be easy. Today’s Washington Post/ABC News poll has much the same outcome as the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. As it shows, “There is also growing dissatisfaction among Republicans with the hard-line stance of their congressional representatives: Fifty-eight percent say their leaders are not doing enough to strike a deal, up from 42 percent in March.” It reveals GOP “majorities favoring some of the specific changes advocated by the president, including higher income tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.”

The poll also shows great dissatisfaction with President Obama, and his unwillingness to reach across the aisle. Sixty-two percent of independents say he is not doing enough to reach a deal, but these same voters say that 79 percent of Republicans are guilty of the same. If these voters are to vote against Obama, they have to be given a worthy reason to do just that.

Cost, further, argues that the Republican Party must be the part of prosperity, or as it once was called, the party of “the full dinner pail.” The country needs Republicans to have a pro-growth plan that fosters economic prosperity and that advances the material interests of all citizens, not just the wealthy and the corporations. If it does not, and if its leaders advocate a rollback to the America of pre-New Deal days and oppose a reasonable safety net in the absence of growth, independents, moderates and working-class voters will again vote Democratic, since the Democrats say they will stand by popular programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Cost calls for what Dwight Eisenhower did as president: a “respect for precedent — accepting the general goals and outlines of a modern welfare state while seeking to make it compatible with growth and prosperity.” (my emphasis.) This means in addition to a policy that promotes economic growth, an “acceptance of a long-established social-welfare system to take care of people who cannot prosper on their own, especially the indigent and the elderly.”

We must stress that it is the reactionary Left, as I call it, that stands against plausible reforms that would save the social safety net, and that would lead to growth at the same time. Spending, as Cost says, has to be contained and not allowed to go above 21 percent of GDP, which would cripple economic growth. But the Republicans also must address the inequity of wages to inflation, and accept that something must be done about the continued fall and decline of real wages in the past decade.

If the Republicans do not do this, the Democrats will continue to promote “solutions” that make things worse, such as increased minimum wage legislation. And Democrats will continue to paint Republicans as the party of big business that is not concerned with the well-being of regular working people. We must therefore point out, as Cost writes, that “businesses that make enormous profits today by laying off workers and sending jobs overseas are no friends of the American growth agenda.” And it must be shown that big business and Wall Street has given more money to Democrats than Republicans, and has proven to be quite comfortable with the Obama leftist domestic agenda.

The issue is showing that Republicans have the interests of average Americans at heart and favor growth in the domestic economy that benefits them, not just large corporations. Cost says that Republicans should take a leaf from William McKinley’s playbook, and advance the interest of business for the sake of American workers.

I would also suggest taking a leaf from America’s first 20th century conservative president, Warren G. Harding. His economic policies — low taxes, debt reduction, and a smaller government with less regulation — promoted prosperity after a post-WW I depression. By the end of 1921, the industrial sector of the economy revived and entered a six year period of expansion. With new auto and trucking industries and a construction boom, and the advance of manufacturing — which climbed 54 percent from the depression of the early 20s — it had the result of raising the real income of workers employed regularly by 26 percent! That is one reason the fortunes of the political Left declined, despite an earlier increase of support for the founding leaders of the American socialist movement. It was not until the next Great Depression that the Left again found its fortunes were on the rise.

Now, with “millions of Americans left behind,” as Cost puts it, and the decrease of jobs in construction and manufacturing (the opposite of the situation as Harding ascended the presidency), the votes and support of these people are essential for a Republican victory. Hence, I concur with Cost’s judgement that “Republicans must remember that, unlike the base of their party, the political center of the country is pragmatic rather than ideological,” and is income oriented. If Republicans do not advance policies that satisfy them, the Democrats will win once again, and things will get much worse.

Republicans must, therefore, reduce the deficit, promote economic growth, and come up with new policies that benefit average working Americans. That is a tall order, and the candidate who addresses these issues is the candidate who will win in 2012.

98 Comments, 38 Threads

1.
Black Bart

Mr. Radosh recommends: “Republicans must, therefore, reduce the deficit, promote economic growth, and come up with new policies that benefit average working Americans. That is a tall order, and the candidate who addresses these issues, is the candidate who will win in 2012.”

Balancing the budget will promote economic growth. Economic growth will benefit average working Americans.

Mr. Radosh invokes Warren G. Harding and then seems to agree with Cost that we have to maintain the welfare state. It has become apparent to me that you cannot have a welfare state and a robust economy. It is too easy to buy votes by promising the welfare recipients other people’s money. And Mr. Cost wants to cap public spending at 21% of GDP, Obama wants it at around 25% and the post war norms are less than 20%. Seems that Cost wants a bigger welfare state.

Mr. Radosh may be correct that the independents will only vote for a big government statist but that will not solve the big problems we have. It will make a third party more viable though.

Balancing the budget will promote economic growth. Economic growth will benefit average working Americans.

And therein lies the problem. Not everyone, even in a room full of econ PhDs would agree with that. We don’t all agree on what causes what, and ideology increasingly advises our notions of what causes what. Look at how belief in global warming lines up with political outlook.

And because of that, the mythological pragmatic, non-ideological person can’t exist. There is no such thing in large swaths of policy debates as a certain fact.

Didn’t all the economic geniuses two years ago tell us to spend like drunk sailors in order to stimulate the economy? Did it work? Did any of them admit that they were full of shirt all along?

You don’t necessarily pick an ideology because of the beliefs that go along with it, but you certainly should chuck one when it turns out to be obvious voodoo.

Tea Party conservatives are against granting special favors to large corporations. Furthermore, the Democratic Party is existentially committed to a close working relationship between corporate moguls and the political class. Every single left-wing economist like John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Samuelson, and John Maynard Keynes are strong supporters of crony capitalism. There are no exceptions whatsoever! A vote for any Democratic Party candidate is a vote for politically protected corporate bosses.

Economics is not the essence of Fascism, Falangism, or any other Right-wing regime. The essence is to protect the existing natural society. This is the counter to Leftism, which is based on a desire to destroy existing natural societies. If you think millions of people will kill and risk death to fight for the flat tax, homo marriage, or to legalize drugs, you are deluded beyond comprehension. Even Stalin had to trot out the Metropolitain of the Russian Orthodox Church to galvanize resistence to the Wehrmacht, as the platoons of Communist true-believers were not going to stop the German armies. Sorry, materialism, even economics, does not motivate large numbers of normal human beings.

“Democratic Party is existentially committed to a close working relationship between corporate moguls and the political class.”

Sounds like the Republican credo.

You’re average Republican apparatchik doesn’t understand that when they fight for unlimited campaign contributions they sound to most normal people like they are supporting open corruption.

You’re smarter Republican apparatchik realizes they do not have the money advantage in corporate slush any more since the Democrats 20 years ago aligned themselves with finance capital: banks, hedges, and health insurance.

It was 1913, with the advent of the Fed, a Demonrat notion.
Your critique is self contradictory. Okay, you hate GOPhers. Big deal. But you describe the Demonrats as suborners of the corporate elite for the purpose of installing them as the rulers of the proletariat; the unwashed masses. That is only a very temporary arrangement, of course, for only True Believers can be even partially trusted, and dupes like Reid, Biden, Pelosi, McConnell, Cantor, etc., will be shot early on and their prerogatives assigned to Party members.
Ergo, logic dictates that you should focus your disdain on the Leftists; not the Rightists. Or do you live in a fantasy world in which logic does not apply?

So good to see you back here, btw… Perhaps I’ve been too absent myself to notice you if you are here much lately, but, anyway I truly adore your posts and your person and I’m glad to see you.

Isn’t it weird how us old-timey P-jammers can get a bit attached? =0)

TOPIC:

Our country is spiraling right into the Communist Manifesto perfectly and THAT is a scary and frightening thing. Every time 0bamunistos/as open their spittle fluttering, mental handi-incapable, leftist UN-educated, brain-indoctrinated, mindless maws… I just want to pour a bucket of water on them so that they will melt into the cesspools from whence they came.

The thing is…

We need an ANTI-OBAMA and right quick.

Someone so humble, so decent and good and kind and not caring about his/her own ‘persona’ that there is a faith in someone who has more brains than charisma, more heart than self-congratulation, more soul than the GODLESS and the antithesis of every creepy, cheesy, car-salesman, soul-selling politician out there…

Every single left-wing economist like John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Samuelson, and John Maynard Keynes are strong supporters of crony capitalism.

Writer Jerome Tuccille called this “state-corporate fascism.” Writer Jonah Goldberg called it “liberal fascism.” I’ve occasionally called it techno-fascism. One thing about it is beyond all dispute: it’s the exact opposite of free enterprise in a free market.

With the greatest respect for a man who writes so courageously and correctly:
Francis W., I believe that the essential issue is not the specific economic modality chosen to service the nation’s economy; but the extent to which that modality is controlled by Government. Communist, Fascist, Socialist, Capitalist, or whatever name is applied, the extent to which central government controls seems to be the most poignant issue.
If there were zero restrictions on drilling for oil, what would be the price of gasoline?
If there were an prohibitive tariff on imported goods, what would be the effect on unemployment?
If our government did not subsidize the international bankers what would be the size of the federal debt?
If we secured our borders and abstained from foreign wars how would our economy benefit?
If we ended the Nanny State and allowed each one to be responsible for his own situation, what would the savings be?
As examples applicable to many kinds of businesses: Would commercial fishermen prosper if the size of their catches was not restricted? Would trappers of wild animals prosper if government stopped over-regulating them? Would more construction take place if expensive, monthslong governmental requirements were set aside? We once built a church building and it took 18 months and 35K in plans and permits before we could break ground.

The point is: get government out of the way and watch the economy bloom. Or, continue to suck our entrepreneurs dry, and stay out of work. Our choice.

There are lies, damn lies and then there are polls. Did anyone actually read the metrics of this poll? Or did they just take it at face value because it had the WSJ stamped on it?

They “pollsters” called 100 “adults” and only questioned those that did not have a land line… Then they skewed the poll further by taking the opinion of more women than men. My bet, although you can’t find it from the poll metrics is that all of the numbers called were exclusive to the North East corridor.

This “poll” is a push poll put out amazingly at the precise time it is needed to nudge public opinion in the direction needed by TPTB also known as the inside the beltway folks.

There are some folks still around who have the wisdom of history and intelligent observations over many decades who can correlate polling with the realities of historical data and outcomes. Radosh, in this instance, is one of those people in my opinion.

It has never been any secret except for the masses who’ve been asleep for decades, that the ‘majority’ flock around the center and the edge of center in American social and political values.

For the Tea Party, the former religious right of the GOP, they should wake up to the fact that, they just like the liberal progressives, are the ‘radical’ minorities of their parties….and certainly the nations population as a whole. Another problem with the Tea Party folks is that they’ve become arrogant and even in many instances vile adversaries towards those who would in part be allies on some issues.

If not by 2012, certainly by 2016, the majority of the nation at least within the GOP, I believe, will have had enough of radicalism governing our nation….or be driven to some degree of reduced balance in including the radicals. I know, and many others I know, have been turn off by the personalities and the rhetoric of the Tea Party folks.

“the wisdom of history and intelligent observations over many decades who can correlate polling with the realities of historical data and outcomes. Radosh, in this instance, is one of those people in my opinion.”

Have I no freedom to make a declarative statement? Your intellect probably fell down over your eyes and you missed where I also made the declarative statement of….”in my opinion”

Frankly, I have NO interest in your opinion and it durn sure doesn’t break my heart if you have no interest in my opinions….or, if you disagree with my opinions. I think and reason independent of anybodys rhetoric or opinions!

“wisdom of history and intelligent observations”; then “will have had enough of radicalism governing our nation”

- Utterly delicious, at least as far as belabored non sequitur can go. The Founding Fathers would be radically laughing in their graves if they heard this. But, seriously, you might have a point: As soon as the nation is finished with its guiding principles, nirvana shall envelop all and sundry. With a little help from the body snatchers, perhaps.

Since you’re speaking in part to “guiding principles” which I can only presume for you, includes adherence of law; do you have permission to be using Readers Digest as your…what do they call it? Tag name or something like that? Given your exposed literary skills I would think ‘Penthouse’ would be more appropriate for your persona if you’re going to ‘borrow’ a publishing company’s name.

And, how do you choose to relate to our logic? And to the real facts?
And check your spelling, please, “excellerated” is not correct.
Let me try to explain: Those of us who believe that we must obey Jesus Christ to be saved always put that fact first. You may feel that, say, abortion and/or homosexuality are not major issues. As bible believers we perceive that they are major issues, because those who disobey God will spend eternity in Hell. Consequently, we cannot align ourselves with those who will not oppose conduct which damns its actors. What good does it do, for example, to develop a viable economy if its beneficiaries condemn themselves to eternal punishment?
“First”. Jesus said, “seek the Kingdom of God, and all things will be added unto you.” That is to say, the spiritual is far more important than the temporal; precisely because the spiritual is eternal.

If you choose not to accept that perspective we cannot cooperate, as your mission is far from ours. We are not going in the same direction; hence, cannot go together. We want y’ll to come with us- but that must be your choice.

Read carefully. The poll was 1,000 adults, not 100. The termination of the interviews for people who said they had a landline was only for 100 people and was done to obtain a sample of cell-phone users only. The slight imbalance in favor of women was in proportion to the population. The poll is not skewed. Full data here.

It most certainly is skewed and it is still a push poll. Go add up the numbers. NONE of them add up to 1000. I had already downloaded the pdf and read the poll before I posted. And it is still a poll of north easterners who are no where near center right nor are they “independent”. Please educate yourself.

I think that Mr. Radosh and the writers he quotes are, indeed, addressing the touchstone for a sweeping defeat of the Obama Administration. The Independents are far more likely to swing to a Tea Party- focussed candidate than a to a rigid no-compromise-ever ideologue. The objective is, as I believe Bill Buckley pointed out, to support the candidate who has he best chance of winning. After the new White House and dominance in both Houses are established, and with three years of dramatically improved economy and governance. further movement to lower spending and reduced government intrusion will be much easier to accomplish. I believe that Rick Perry offers the best prospect, and that the will bring with him a great number of superior prospects for Cabinet offices..

I agree with your conclusion about what Republicans must do. I disagree with the idea that tea party support is limited. If you ask whether someone supports low taxes, limited government and fiscal discipline, I bet you would get near 100% agreement. These are the tea party principles.

Steve, it ain’t like that at all. In 2008 the majority voted in a sociopathic, communistic, babykilling, queerloving America-hater, knowing him to be all that based on his public record and declamations. Thats what they wanted; thats what they got. After two and a half years of total disaster 45% still support the Monster! Add to that the Chicago Count votes: the dead, criminal, ficticious, insane, doped-up, etc. and you have a majority. Most Americans are ignorant deadbeats, looking for a handout, really believing that Government has a responsibility to support them. Doubt that if you will, but please see, in 2012, what percentage vote again for Oscambo et al. It will be a majority, in part because again, the GOPhers will not offer a viable alternative. But it won’t matter, because, by then, progress toward the Grand Caliphate will be irreversible; giving the phrase, “hell on earth” real meaning.

You have to hammer home the fact that the country everyone enjoys was not created on socialist views of the economy and that those views will in fact destroy America based on cheap “racist” psychology and in favor of the least productive.

Moronic stereotype about rich people occupying some immoral position by default while poor people are some kind of just philosophers is nonsense.

Pointing to South America and repeating the word “genius” over and over again will not make them geniuses. Get ready for this bombshell, the least among us are in fact the least. There are charities for such things. Those who are productive are not charities nor is gov’t. If one has the means to move out from ones parents then by all means do so. If you have a baby with no father then move back in with your parents instead of getting me involved in cultural values I have and want nothing to do with.

I love books; there is an upside to life for people who love books. If you don’t love books and like to party, party on your own dime. The idea that poor people with cable TV are either in fact poor or unlucky is nonsense. There is such a thing as failure and I am not the go to guy for failure. Lower taxes, get half the country not paying ANY taxes to start paying in and stay out of my life and especially quit telling me I’m responsible for the after effects of slavery and Pizzaro.

“Get ready for this bombshell, the least among us are in fact the least. There are charities for such things. Those who are productive are not charities nor is gov’t.”

Zap! That takes care of the wimps – e.g., “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” And I’m sure RR would agree. Because, while you gotta “come up with new policies that benefit average working Americans,” you’ve also gotta block the Dems’ “increased minimum wage legislation,” which, as everyone knows, is aimed at helping below average working Americans. And $7.75 per hour is more than enough for them.

I wish the GOP would take a stand against Federal subsidies to politically connected corporations. Corporate welfare isn’t capitalism, it’s the opposite of capitalism.

General Electric is one of Obama’s favorite companies, with their “green” stance and ads touting putting electric charging stations for cars on every street corner. And sure enough, G.E. paid no taxes at all last year.

And Pawlenty is right to oppose ethanol subsidies. They benefit no one but agribusiness.

One obstacle has been Grover Norquist’s bizarre claim that ending a subsidy represents a tax increase. No it doesn’t. I believe Mitch McConnell correctly pointed out that a subsidy *is* a tax increase on all those other companies (esp. small businesses) that don’t get that subsidy.

["“Republicans must,.... and come up with new policies that benefit average working Americans."]

There are 1,700+ federal subsidies (welfare) outside the BIG three programs that ‘ultimately’ do just that! Anybody ever see a government ‘policy’ that didn’t have a big price tag attatched? Heck, states and employers even add to labor welfare subsidies. Our economy only exists to the extent that it has because of commerce and labor welfare subsidies. We haven’t added to the discussions international commerce subsidies yet! A few million JOB’s are attached to all the governments spending. By some estimates in January, only 47% of America’s working age , not in the instutional or active duty military category, have ‘full time’ jobs.

With every dollar slashed in government spending, it correlates to one dollar less in the economy and….JOBS! The government DOES andd to the economy and create JOB’s if only by its consumption of goods and services.

The federal government, representing and serving their people’s, over the past five decades, have put this nation in a ‘catch-22′ situation for which very few American’s can or would be willing to sacrifice at the levels required.

There ar NO simplistic answers to the problems as all the superficial political rhetoric suggests.

In the Day when Gold was solely and totally the standard by which Wealth was measured, the government could posess the wealth of the nation and choose its disbursment. (In fact this is why Alchemests arose, they wanted to create Gold from Iron to end the dependance upon Gold as the Means of wealth.)

Today Wealth is found in the Creativity and Ideas of Citizens. The freeer those citizens are from Government interferance and confiscation, the greater the degree to which they can create wealth. No one becomes Rich in a Vaccuum. Look at anyone who has become wealthy and you’ll see multitudes of others near to them who also became wealthy as a result of the person at the core.

How many Microsoft Millionaires were created as Bill Gates became a Billionaire?

There was NO government involvement in Bill Gates creating Microsoft, and Building Microsoft to a worldwide empire. Yet when Janet Reno poked her nose into Microsoft’s business she burst the Tech Bubble and saw much that was built come tumbling down.

When a person has 100 percent of the fruits of their labor confiscated for someone else there is a name for that: Slavery!
At what percentage does Slavery end and Taxation begin?
75 percent?
50 percent?
25 percent?
10 percent?

“…a body comprised of a “white, comfortable middle-class movement that was focused on quality-of-life issues rather than on raising average Americans’ standard of living.”

In 1958 an awful book was published: The Affluent Society, by John Kenneth Galbraith. He successfully argued that we were now a very wealthy society—and therefore could focus on redistributing the goodies. Producing these products no longer had to be our main focus. The resulting damage was mind boggling to say the least. Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek may have been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics, but Galbraith regrettably won the hearts and minds of our elites.

I cannot see how you can get in much trouble by cutting spending, eliminating government waste, and balancing the budget. If Republicans can hold on to those three issues, the country will follow. We are going to be Greece soon and the rest of Europe isn’t too far off where Greece is right now, especially Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain. Those countries have all found out that the social-welfare state is a bust because it always eventually runs out of money. So to avoid this, we have to get our own house in order and to do that we must cut, cap, and balance. I know, I know, the bill that just passed the House probably will die in the Senate, but at least go on record that we tried. Cut, cap, and balance will only work if we control both Congress and the White House. Hopefully, in November 2012 we will make that happen.

The way to win the hearts and minds of both the independents and the tea party is to attack the elites relentlessly. It is not difficult to motivate people who are struggling due to the recession to resent public employees and other ‘connected’ people who have platinum jobs and retirement plans simply because they are Progressives.

We have to stop with this idea that what people need to do is look for benefits from the government. Government needs to stop interfering, no more crony capitalism and special tax loopholes, nobody is too big to fail. We need a fair system which is not overly burdened by regulations and taxes. Corporations aren’t the problem, elected officials who cater to them are. Washington can’t give you a job or make your wages go up, in fact they can only stunt the growth of both by exerting the constant overreach that we have seen for a long time now.

The Republicans will win back the presidency in a big way without any special focus or strategy. I think this is certain because people are flat out exhausted and horrified at what we have now. The question is what do we do next. I hope we take aim at the elites and remove the special perks and tax breaks and level the playing field so that all people and corporations have a fair shake.

I generally agree with Ron Radosh’s pieces but this one leaves me cold. There is WAY too much hand wringing here. So let’s just try to keep things simple. Firstly, yes, it is a smart thing to try to win as many independent voters as possible. but we do that by convincing them to join us, not vice versa. Conservatism is on the ascendency again. Independents are moving to the right, because OBVIOUSLY the Left has done NOTHING helpful throughout the Obama administration. The GOP, which is a right-of-center party does not need to lean to the left. Secondly, in this election cycle what the GOP needs more than anything else is to LISTEN to demands of the base. We in the base are FED UP with RNC phone banks calling us up for money while soundly ignoring our ever-mounting complaints about how the party is being run. It is this intense frustration that has given rise to the Tea Party movement. 2010 illustrated the power of that movement. In 2012 we need to have the base pumped sky high for victory. If we do that, we will guarantee an energized turn-out at the polls, and we will give independents a clear choice and something to latch onto.

It is the base that matters, first and foremost, not the independents. The independents are looking for something vital and forward-looking to ward off despair. They can’t get that from the Left. It is time for the Base — that is to say, the bona-fide conservative Right of the Republican party to lead. We lost our nerve in 2008 and went Rino. We cannot afford to make the same mistake twice.

Conservatism is proving and predictably so, to be the GOP’s former radical religious right folks. Think I’m wrong? Take a look at the data of the GOP states majorities and see if JOB’s, their economies and debt are on the front burners. NOPE! Social issues and predominately abortion issues are on their Tea Party backed front burners.

Show me a Tea Party backed states GOP administration that has refused federal government handouts. In fact, show me one that hasn’t ‘begged’ for more federal economic support! Additionally, the public-private sector ‘partnership’ has been in place so long its become the American system in which the economy relies upon….must rely upon now!

Only the weak of mind and those who can’t see past their eye brows, falls for the Tea party ‘conservative movement’ double-speak rhetoric.

Sleeping at the wheel carries the risk of a fatal collison and most people are still asleep at the wheel!

Hopefully, you’re not a real medical doctor, Dr. Lip, as your diagnostic protocols and skills are lacking. I will take it you can’t refute anything I said so slinging a dart was the only option left for you. Are you kin to Saul?

No, he just realizes that to have a earnest discourse with you is impossible as you are not willing to open your mind to the fact that the drivel and pablum that you have swallowed lock stock and barrel is wrong in it’s base principles. To believe what you espouse would require you to be in a mind altered state. So he cuts to the chase and says, WTF? are you on acid?

“We lost our nerve in 2008 and went Rino. We cannot afford to make the same mistake twice.”

Amen. The same mistake was made with both Bushes and Dole. We don’t need RINOs, we need a candidate who will pick up the mantle of Reagan and wear it with pride and strength. Another ‘morning in America’ is long over due.

Frank,
I don’t care about winning over independents to our side in an ideological way. I care about showing them that our proposals will work. It is not the superiority of our philosophy that counts with voters; it is the ability of our philosophy to inspire better solutions to problems. That means we have to subject conservative proposals to the same scrutiny as liberal ones. Where our are shown to be lacking or unworkable, they must be honed into something better, and then they must be presented to the public in a way that appeals to their common sense. Name calling and witch hunting confuse people and turn them off. I don’t have a problem with a compromise, provided that there is a reason for it and the other side has shown us a flaw in our original idea. That puts the burden on them to come up with something demonstrably better.

Whenever I see something about “what Repubs must do”, I always know it’ll be a boatload of stupid, including the commentary. Usually the comments at PJM are really good, but this area of discussion is just filled with the clouded thinking of platitudes and propaganda.

First, whatever has worked in elections past is no longer true. The paradigm has shifted irrevocably, because the MSM no longer has a monopoly.

Second, I do not give a damn what “independents” think. I do not, because this catering to them is what got us here. Everything they vote for has turned to crap, and they need to be told specifically that! “How’s that working out for you, dumbass?”

Third, most “independents” lie about being independent. Heck, you cannot even define the term. Does it mean those who simply are not registered with the duopoly? Is it those who reject the duopoly? Is it those who favor no Party at all? Is it those who are somewhere between Republicans and Democrats? Are Libertarians considered “independents”?

Libertarians are to the Right of Conservatives. The Green Party is to the Left of Democrats, basically being envirofascists. The Constitution Party is very Conservative. Lots of other Parties out there.

The Big Lie is that Independents are in the Center, that said Center lies between Democrats and Republicans. It does not. The center is between big government and small government. Moderate Republicans are to the Left of Center. They are about Party and Power, not principles. They LIKE big government. It is why the Moderates and the Conservatives revile each other. The Center has moved to the Left, in traditional thinking, because both Parties have moved to the Left. Therefore, said “independents” are Left of moderate Republicans.

Even the term “moderate” is a Leftist lie. There is nothing moderate about them, other than them being moderately Left of Center. They are not moderately Right of Center, as has been implied. The actual Center is between Moderate and Conservative Republicans.

We have been trying to appease the Left for many decades now, and that is what it is: appeasement. The Left of Center policies have brought us to this point. It is complete failure.

The problem is that we are no longer a Center-Right country. We have become Center-Left. Unless we can succeed in pulling the country back to the Right, which is happening, then these problems cannot really be fixed.

No more compromising with the Left. No more trying to reach out to stupid “independents”. Aren’t they the same stupid people who voted for Obama? TELL them that! We have to demand a move back to the Right. A strong stand for this, bold colors, is the only thing that will win the “independents” away from the siren songs of the Left. We will not win them over with pale pastels.

This is what made the mid-terms so successful. Why would you turn away from the only success we have enjoyed in awhile? Why would we seek to return to the same old tried-and-untrue methods? Because that is the conventional wisdom? Because some half-assed poll said so? Yeah, let’s get seriously stuck on stupid and continue to do what clearly does not work. How utterly stupid would that be?

Let’s keep pulling to the Right. Let’s not let them talk us into not pulling so damned hard. This is just them pulling Left. Ignore it, or use it as motivation to pull harder in this tug-of-war. Don’t you know how to play tug-of-war? I was a lot smaller than the other kids, but I was usually the anchor. I knew how to pull hard. Stubborn little bastard.

(Sorry if this came out a bit disjointed. It does not flow particularly smoothly. I just typed as fast as I can, and it is too long to rewrite.)

I think that your’s is an excellent and well-argued reply to Radosh. But I disagree with your assertion that we are no longer a right-of-center country. I think we are still holding on. But it is hard as hell, given the fact that we are being systematically undermined by a WELL-left-of-center MSM, pop-cult entertainment industry, and kindergarden-to-post-doc educational establishment. I think that the American love of liberty still holds the core. We have overcome worse. But perhaps I am engaging in wishful thinking. Maybe the appeasers will succeed in shaping the GOP into a party that Lindsey Graham would be proud of. But I just can’t accept that.

Marc…a lot of verbage, all presented as only opinions. The difference between moderates and the extremes is that moderates are more the ‘realists’ of government…and society in gerneral. Moderates, have depth in their thinking and reasoning while the radical extremes are superficial. Neither have much to do with IQ’s/intellect…just the wisdom of reality or the lacking of reality wisdom. If the probability and philosophical thinkers were so grand, the world would already be that famous utopia. Peaceful societies exist and govern only through the principles of compromise….that constitutional thing that so many want to selectively respect.

If folks don’t like what brought the nation to this point of circumstance then by all means blame the constitution first and the people second. The government has always been of the people to whom the constitution grants ultimate power.

Lastly! I’ve never understood to what benefit any anti group finds in preaching to and casting stones, at their own. I would think a benefit might better come from going and preaching and casting stones (the latter a real proven method of converting folks) at those folks in those communites (districts) around the country they see as their real enemies. The self ordained intellectual arrogance and personalities of most Tea Party folks on PJM have turned this early supporter of their cause away. If you’re a businessman then surely, you know where there is one voiced complaint there are many more silent complaints of the same nature.

“The difference between moderates and the extremes is that moderates are more the ‘realists’ of government…and society in gerneral. Moderates, have depth in their thinking and reasoning… ”

And as a result we have $14+ trillion, soon to be $17,000,000,000,000 of debt obligations. WAY TO GO MODERATES! Assuming this house of cards does not fall in the next 3 years, ‘moderate, bipartisan’ moderation will produce $20 or $25 trillion in debt obligations long before a gang rape of 6 10 year plan comes to fruition.

Parker…Everybody conveniently ignores that it is the people who vote into the government those representing their will…district by district across the land. The congress historically ends up with a majority representation and a minority representation body. The best the minority can do is negotiate and compromise that is…if one has any respect for the constitution. I will leave it up to you to search the historical references to what the majority of the nations people have chosen over time for not only their government leaders, but the direction of the nation.

Next, folks conveniently ignore that even the founders disagreed on what the nation should be and in the end came to a compromise….leave it to the people district by district and the congress they elect to represent them. I can’t think of an instance when the constitutional mandate giving the ultimate powers to the majority of people has been violated in seating a representative government body.

The Tea party isn’t even a legal organized ‘political party’ of folks! At best, they are a disgruntled minority within the GOP…most from the old social centric (anti abortion) religious right of the GOP. If the Tea party folks think they have all the sway of the nation in their hands, then by all means go and form a legal political party and back up all the inferred rhetoric of how many followers there are in the nation. I suspect they won’t, as they know they’re nowhere near the strength they try to infer….even within the GOP! Otherwise, they would be rushing to form a legal party and take out the old GOP bast-ards and….. the democrat party.

These moderates, those realists of government possessing depth of thinking and reasoning far superior to those superficial radical extremes, (a presumption not unlike the liberal presumption of superiority over the conservatives) traits which, as you point out, are incidental when compared to the wisdom of reality that allows your moderates to govern society through the principles of compromise… Am I to assume those moderates with a desire for compromise don’t selectively disrespect the constitution themselves?

Indeed. Mightn’t that affection for and celebration of compromise be construed as going along to get along? I think so.

I think a great number of us don’t like where we are as a country but we’re not blaming the constitution. We’re blaming the people who compromise their way around the constitution.

Also, it’s well and good to say government has always been of the people to whom the constitution grants ultimate power but that’s not exactly how the government works. In reality I mean.

As far as I can tell, those compromisers would be far happier if “the people” just shut up and did what they were told.

tatosian…I can only presume you have a better constitution and form of governance for the America…right? I’m guessing you’d would happily support a one-party rule system except…… for when your party isn’t the popular flavor. Always amazing when a small minority of folks DEMAND they represent the opposing majority in a society. Theres a number of clinical diagnosis for those kinds of people.

TTT— Wherein have I suggested that there is a better constitution and system of governance than those currently in place, but held in flagrant disregard by your compromisers?

The constitution and system is all that’s needed to confirm the liberties and freedoms held inalienable by the framers.

It’s not me who wants a one party rule system.

In fact it’s you and your precious republicans whose worship of compromise has essentially eliminated any real opposition to the democrats. In doing so, that is, in repeatedly giving those democrats whatever they want, it’s the republicans (and folks like yourself) who have given us what amounts to a one party rule system.

I and a great many others, oppose that one party rule system.

The only thing I’m DEMANDING (your caps) is an end to your one party rule system.

Incidentally, you imply I’m part of a minority that apparently suffers from some sort of clinically defined imbalance and also refer to the tea party as a minority. Interestingly, in one of your earlier outbursts you say this; “If you’re a businessman then surely, you know where there is one voiced complaint there are many more silent complaints of the same nature.”

If one applies the same principle to the tea parties and independents like myself well, our numbers don’t seem quite so insignificant do they?

TT, I am not a businessman. I tried and failed many times. I kept trying, though, until my health failed.

I am sorry the rhetoric turned you away, and probably you are right, that there are others like you. You really shouldn’t let it bother you, though. It really IS a tug-of-war. The Far-Left fights very hard for its side. I am sure they turn you off, too. There are many more the rhetoric does reach, though. The country is very divided, and the gap is widening, not closing. More and more, folks are choosing sides.

The reaction from the Right is not about ideology. Conservatives, being conservative, usually are not politically active. It is not our thing. Look at the Tea-Partiers. They are not the usual ragged protesters. These are the decent, heretofore “Silent Majority” who have suddenly decided they can be silent no longer. Finally, they speak, and you find their speech offensive. Why?

Some, not all, of them are SoCons. Should they not have a voice? What is so wrong with defending traditional marriage and being against abortion? Almost all of them are FisCons. I am sure that does not bother you. Almost all support the Constitution. Surely, you have no problem with that.

So, it really is just the rhetoric, right? Well, the tenor of their rhetoric does not make them wrong. It is quite understandable considering the outrage necessary to get them engaged.

As for it just being opinion… yes, of course. Political philosophy, like all philosophy, is just opinion. One should marshal some facts to support one’s belief. I often do. I did a bit in the above, and I have offered far more before, as you well know. I cannot simply restate all the fundamentals every time I post. So, chastising me for just opinions is setting up a false standard.

You said in other posts that moderates are realists, and the extremes are superficial. I am a hard-line Conservative (with some libertarian leanings). Do you find me superficial? Do you think I am a blind slave to my ideology? Or is it that I truly believe these things are best for my country?

I do not think moderates are realists at all, or they would realize that what they are doing does not work. The whole essence of Conservatism is staying with what is proven to work. I believe Conservatives are the realists. Do we have to eventually compromise to get half a loaf? Yes. Should we not auger for a better position, so that we need no longer compromise and get a half-assed deal? Certainly. To negotiate from a position of strength, one needs to be strong.

Do not confuse realism once one is in power with realism in political philosophy. Conservatism works. Proven fact. That’s realism in philosophy. Reagan once said, “The other side got elected, too.” That’s realism in power. Reagan did not say, “I won.” to a room filled with other winners. The thing is to not compromise before you even sit down at the negotiating table.

Fight for the power, then fight with the power. Each must advocate strongly for his position. We then arrive at some “center”. If we do not advocate strongly for our position, we then arrive at some false “center”. This was my point about the Big Lie of the “Center”. When the duopoly moves to the Left, the actual center does not move, just the perceived center. The grid does not change. The position on the grid changes.

Don’t mind me if I pull hard. I’m supposed to. I do not mind when others pull hard, unless they are supposed to be on my side, but are actually pulling for the other team. You are advocating something else. Bothers me not a bit, because you have never declared for my side.

Thanks Marc….Now, if everybody would express themselves as you just did with the same bit of maturity and protocol among each other, I may gain some respect for them in spite of differences.

["Each must advocate strongly for his position. We then arrive at some “center”."]

Lest I be redundant once more…what you say, says it all. The floors of congress denies no voice, be they majority or minority. Whether by vocal oration or wrtten statement, all becomes, and is compiled, as a matter of congressional record on each and every issue….available to each member and their staffs.

Moving on. I take exception to those who highjack a vocabulary term and assign it as exclusive property to one political party or ideology.

Conservative/conservatism is one instance.

The common definition of conservative is rather limited and simple as is the common definition of moderate. Both conservative and moderate are the exact opposite of extreme…’normally’. In my opinion a ‘true’ conservative and moderate have far more in common. Moderates and conservatives (normally) occupy that space ‘between’ opposing extremes…..the center. Can a conservative be defined as an extremist? At least some, including myself, think so and at least the Heritage Dictionary cites this example: “Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See Synonyms at excessive.”

Superficial. How comfortable would you be having heart surgery done by a physcian who learned his craft from single-source summaries? Thats how most government is adjudicated and at best most American’s gain some limited knowledge. Take for example the Affordable Health Care Act. Every congress person voted with only some degrees of summary information. Not a single congress person wrote any of the legislation and today, after the fact, experts are still disceting it for some level of knowledge.

Everything between the public sectors and the private sectors represents thousands upon thousands of little dots with most all connected one to another. Take for example, todays announcement of approximately 11,000 NASA employess being given green slips over the coming three weeks or so. The Tea Party folks are probably jubilant as taxpayers and anti big government. Should they be? I don’t know but this I do know. Each one of those jobs (dots) connects to many more dots of the states involved and the national economy in addition to reduced tax revenue and who knows how many more private sector jobs are yet to be lost in the commerce chain that supported the employer and employees with goods and services. It dosen’t stop there! Theres a good probability that the national genius and technical resource of many of those employees and sub contractors may well migrate to other international markets with their expertise. A ‘suggestion’ of another project and re-employment thirty years down the road is probably not very comforting nor is making pizza pies at Pizza Hut.

Nothing is as simplistic as all the superficial rhetoric portrays it to be. Theres human faces attatched to every problem and every proposed solution. Theres also a negative economic impact attached to most every problem and proposed solution given the deep economic crisis of the times. Yes, ideally, human sacrifices would seem logical but, nobody is saying sacrifice from whom and at what human cost and for how long. Some on here suggest, quite arrogantly I might add, that anybody below their own presumed intellect and economic achievement must be sacrificed. I’ll leave it at this point!

I occupy the center ground, think and reason independently and that is where I shall remain for whatever time I have left. That said, I certainly differ with you on several issues, but I appreciate and respect you for your generally reserved and mature demeanor….along with a few others commentors and ‘primary’ PJM bloggers.

Oh, by the way! Had the ‘original’ Tea party grassroot folks retained their independence from any political party and ideology and stuck to only the economy (initiatives returning traditional economic bases) , jobs (National right-to-work legislation) and a constitutional government (commerce clause), I most likely would have respected and stuck with them. Had they sought and supported moderate democrat candidates in the liberal stronghold districts and sought legitimate GOP candidates they would have gone a very long ways in validating themselves in my opinion. Another thing I despise is their perptuating the ‘nationalizing’ of states districts election. If they’re as big and strong as they say, they should have good organization in every district and be anti nationalization of states district elections. Nationalization of district elections is constitutional corruption at its finest!

Relax Marc. Nobody is “catering” to the independents, or trying to “pull” them. There is no way to focus on independents. There can be no such thing as a separate strategy for the undecided sector. You are right: they are not deep thinkers, not into analysis or deep nuance They don’t think left or right. They are “gut-feeling” voters and will move to the side they feel will make life better for them, soonest.

Directing the message at the Tea Party is “pulling to the right” and will pull the fence-sitters as well. They will make the difference between a clean victory and a landslide.

I think there are going to be so many things in ‘play’…especially ‘redistricting’, ‘Acorn acolytes’ willing others to vote ten times times ten under the moniker of “Mickey Mouse” & “Dead people” (it matters NOT if it’s fraud, its the Cloward Piven way of destroying the democratic vote), the thuggery from public sector unions and last but not least, the constant “fear mongering” that is the Left’s Golden Ticket (to hell).

Delia…..Rely on redistricting all you want! The predominately white middle and upper class GOP is a dying breed. Maybe take a look at the ever increasing minority immigrant populations and the so-called minority birth rates over the last several decades. In case you’re not aware, the ‘minority’ birth rates have now superceded the white folk…especially, the intellectually superior white middle and upper class white folk. Also, I haven’t witnessed many of those in the ‘movement’ employing the kinds of tactics to sway and win many converts. The history of talking over and down to people with intellectual arrogance and superiority has never been a winner….nor has personalized attacks.

X……So many make the claims that it is the ‘useless’ immigrants and minorities who are the dregs of our society. To those elitist fools I was making the point they will soon be out numbered….if not already!

Reasonable folks know that many social issues have common alliances across all party lines but are ignored and rejected by the party tagger folks. Many of the GOP and Tea party extremes believe all democrats are Marxist socialists and inferior human beings and therefore, you’re an enemy and treated as such. The same happens across the street with the democrats liberal socialists extremes.

The nation and its government continues to be consumed at an excellerated pace by the radical extremes of politics while the nations business continues to suffer. Folks of ALL parties had no complaints when they were reaping the harvest of excess for decades. Now, as a result of their excess the party is over and they want to blame each other by some political party ideological tag.

“The history of talking over and down to people with intellectual arrogance and superiority has never been a winner….nor has personalized attacks.”

The rise, reign and continuing destruction of a nation by the methods and policies of Barack Hussein Obama call for a reconsideration of your
conclusion.

Arrogance and attacks, personal and general, are his strong suit and millions of fools consider them legitimate tools of politicians in this country todlay. They may get the money, but they don’t win the prize as humanitarians. Nor will they in the future.

CGW…not a tokens worth of difference in the tactics of the 60′s and 70′s Alinsky revoluntionaries and many of the Tea Party folks of today in the various venues afforded them. When folks portray themselves as ‘simple’ assassins they are portraying themselves as a person void of substance and decent character. Folks portraying themselves as self annoited arrogant intellectuals talking over and down to folks are not far behind….in ‘my’ opinion!

But you’re right about one thing! The nation of today consists of generations, most of whom can’t think and reason independently and fall for the sometimes slick rhetoric and above all the appearance and star quality of the snake oil salesman. Regardless, every election cycle, folks can take their opinions to their American Idol ballot boxes. Right now for me, I have no inclination to take any Tea Party reminder stick’ems with me. On second thought, I may well write notes on my hand to remind me who not to vote for.

“I do not give a damn what “independents” think. I do not, because this catering to them is what got us here. Everything they vote for has turned to crap, and they need to be told specifically that! “How’s that working out for you, dumbass?””

I’m an independent who cannot vote for democrat/progressives. They are mad dog ideologues. Incredibly successful (thanks in no small part to Republicans who assure us each and every cycle that principle cannot win elections) but ideologues none the less.

(How come Democrats have such success following their principles but Republicans swear adhering to principle is an electoral loser? Can someone, one of your big brain moderates perhaps, explain that to me?)

My country has suffered as a result of this progressive juggernaut that Republicans won’t stop.

However, Republicans always seem to be the lesser of two evils and, in order to vote against the Democrats, I hold my nose and vote Republican. More often than not.

Is that what you had in mind with your catering to independents remark? Nose plugs?

Are you referring to McCain? Is that it? Your uber intelligent Republican moderates figured the best way to capture the independent vote was a McCain candidacy?

The McCain loss and the victory of the Obama junto was the fault of the independents?

I am a Tea Party supporter, but I am also pragmatic. Here is where I break with them and the GOP. I think we should raise the taxes on the wealthy excluding those who run a business with less than 50 employees. Also I think we should have a wealth tax on assets above $1 million and make it “progressive.” Most of the wealthy especially the uber-wealthy are progs anyway. So why are we supporting them and their leftist lifestyles? Finally I think we should tax the 51% who pay no federal taxes at 15% on what they receive and discontinue EITC; everybody should have some skin in the game. End all subsidies and 501C3 deductions except those going to health care and directly to the poor. We should tax union dues; tax punitive damages awarded by juries at 90%.

This would get the “independent vote. Why do we cut off our noses to spite our faces by continuing to not raise taxes on the wealthy? Look at who has recently given “the won” his $86 million this quarter. Let’s tax the hell out of them. Where am I going wrong?

In answer to your question: you are “going wrong” in thinking that “The Rich” or “The Wealthy” owes you, or me, or anyone else anything simply by virtue of being in a higher tax bracket. Who cares if my neighbor down the street owns a kick-ass RV with attached cabin-cruiser? Would taking it away from him and giving it to some weird wealth-redistribution abstraction (like, say, Homes for Displaced Somalis) make ME (or you) any happier? It’s crap! It’s sinful (see God’s Ten Commandments). And it’s un-American. We are individuals FIRST in this country, not interest groups. I could go on, but I have one hell of a hard time buying that you, blotto, are a bona-fide Tea Party supporter. In terms of “progressive” tax rates, we are the leader of the industrialized world. Just how far would you rid us of individual ambition to suit your own covetous desires?

Gently, the tithing requirement of the OT ceased at the Cross, Col.2.14-17. Those who live by the OT are severed from Christ, Gal.5.4 and therefore lost, as, Jn.14.6, no one comes to the father except by jesus Christ, Who saves those who obey Him, Heb.5.9.

The country is not it trouble because its people are taxed too little, the country is in trouble because the people have allowed the ruling class to spend too much of their money. Before trying to solve a problem, its useful to first define it.

Add in the 3 highest priority agenda items & it sounds like jd is referring to President Ronald Reagan. He was one of the few politician that actually made the voters feel as though he shared the same reality. We need some candidate, whether male or female, that possesses many of RWR’s qualities.

At the same time the Dems are attacked on issues, we have to start attacking their ideological base as one that is firmly Marxist, anti-American and which indulges in casual hate speech on a regular basis.

Why should anyone support entities that attack people based on race or gender?

Reading the comments on what “independents” are like and how they think, by some folks whose automatic reaction to them is to hurl invective…is like a hyena describing a lion.

They share the same space, they share the same desires,they hunt the same sustenance…they simply can’t and won’t get along.

This saddens me. Let me first say that I find almost all the commentary to be completely inapposite in most of its foundational points, as I see independents.

However, I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to “labeling” words and phrases.

I think the current use of “liberal”, “progressive”, “elite” and “mainstream” are logs on a verbal bonfire, fueling a subliminal attack of leftism on our culture. They are all masks worn by monsters to hide their true intent. Those too lazy to fight back, simply roll over and throw another log on the funeral pyre of anti-leftism.

I also firmly agree with the very basic mathematical notion that NEITHER party can win without the center. The Democratic Party and the two imbeciles at the top of their ticket are ripe for a near wipeout in 2012.

We could put this country back on track to recovery…which will, not by coincidence…help the middle class AND many, many, many more of those not yet at middle class status…than the “redistributive” crumbs of permanent victimhood advocated by the small c communist regime currently in power in two and a half houses of our reprsentative government in this land of ours.

Being an anti-leftist AND being a “live and let live” independent are not incongruous positions to take.

I vehemently and vocally oppose rampant, unchecked leftism. The Two And a Half Houses sitcom has four main characters. A whoring, spendaholic who skates through life boozing, tearing down convention, ethics, morals, and tossing away money and people with impunity. These are mistakenly called “elites”. They attract hangers-on, sponges, gold-diggers, and hedonists…motivated by greed and fooled by the paper thin charm offensive.

Then there is the wimpy sponge who simply takes up the position as the freeloader, essentially a government hack or union worker, illiterate “teacher” or lazy incompetent….who bloats the rent rolls of municipal, state and federal buildings and skates through life with an equally bloated pension, retirement package and a cushy life…as long as he votes the gravy train ticket.

The third character is the idiot offspring, “useful” is a bit of an overstatement. But, useful idiot probably applies as well as anything else. Too dim to realize that he is not on the gravy train, he is on the bread crumb train, he blissfully picks his nose, joins the fealty voting bloc and thinks he has it made, because the above two cretins tell him so.

The last character is the servant class…who is told she is “part of the family”. She is loud, makes a lot of demands, bullies the “elites”….forces them to kneel at her race and class altar…and they do. But, in the end…she still cleans the racing striped out of their underwear, scrubs their toilets, and pre-soaks the bodily fluids out of their bedsheets.

They pretend that she has power, she pretends to wield it. She is the “guilt trip” arm of the ensemble cast. They use her, keep her down…and pretend she isn’t really being “kept in her place”.

Oh, there is one more character. The one who comes and brings the “news” and “information” to the dysfunctional Two and a Half Houses. They despise her, think she is the devil incarnate. She has not one scruple. She taught them everything they know. She gave birth to them. And she would sell her soul just to advance her own cause. News and information are all completely slanted to cheat, lie, steal, rape, pillage and plunder the truth….the ends justify the means.

We are the audience for this Two and a Half Houses sitcom. It isn’t one bit funny. And our engaging in a childish spat over control over the channel changer, will have us watching reruns for another four years…or permanently…because we simply won’t agree on ANY better use of power to change the damn channel.

re: Mr. Solomon Kleinsmith
The Republicans ARE moderates and back room, wink and nod deal makers every bit as much as the democrats.
When conservatives run with conservative principles and stick to them they win. When conservatives run trying to bring in the moderates such as yourself they almost always lose or are elected and go on to be a major disappointment in the Congress.
How has that hope and change worked out for you so far? I have a payroll to meet each week and don’t need a Fascist government promoting a socialist society.
James Douglass
Garden City, Kansas

Seems clear Mr. Radosh didn’t convince many of those who blog here. I think, if they would but “get” it, a candidate who emulated Eisenhower rather than Reagan is what the Republican Party needs if they are ever to restore that party to its former status.

But they won’t, Mr. Radosh!! Too busy with all those stock answers that promise certainty in economic outcomes if we but do this or that to give corporations confidence. Meanwhile the corporations–being corporations–go right on doing what they damn well please with NOT A THOUGHT about what’s good for America. Corporations, as I may have said here before, are by definition amoral. And these days they’re also in bed with China (not with this country–labor will NEVER NEVER be cheap enough again to compare with communist China!).

I thought Radosh’s article was unusually comprehensive, trying to talk some sense and pragmatism into a Party that is unrecognizable to this former Republican.

AS it is, as an Independent, I plan to register Republican in time to vote in the primary and vote for the LEAST likely to fare weel against Obama. Do I love Obama?? Not really, and that’s one aspect not covered in this otherwise great article–I didn’t leave your party you-all left ME.

Oh yes, January 2009, when Liberalism was going to flourish for another 40 years. All the pundit class were saying it, even the ‘so called’ conservatives. Reaginsim was D.E.A.D.

And then, on April 15 of 2009, a Rag Tag bunch of regular folks started to get together and talk at little ralleys to discuss the Founders, Limited Government, Pride in America, Lowering Taxes (Reaganism if you will).

They were laughed at, mocked, slandered, and demonized.

And what happened November 2010 again?????

Oh yeah, Reaganism Kicked Donkey!

Yeah, the republicans nedd to turn their back on a winning game, that’ll do the trick!

Every polliing place in the country must be watched carefully: otherwise, whatever candidate the Republicans hope to elect, will go down in defeat.
For every legal Republican vote, we may again see two or three
illegals, dead or absent votes for the Democratic opponent. Regarding the
voting practices, we must keep vigilant. And above all, make sure those military voting priveleges are honored…on time !!!

“Being an anti-leftist AND being a “live and let live” independent are not incongruous positions to take.”

No, they are not, cf. But it is not a “Centrist” position. That is the libertarian position… which is far-Right on any political circle.

I like libertarians. I disagree with some of their positions, me being a good SoCon and all, but I can live with that. Conservatives and Libertarians have far more in common with each other than do Conservatives and “Moderate” Republicans.

I like you, cf. I seem to have given you some offense over the years, and for that, I apologize. Again.

I bought the book “A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel” by Allis Radosh and Ronald Radosh at a store on the Independence Square. It is highly recommended, as is the store. BTW, I shook Harry’s hand and escorted him to the speaker’s stand when he addressed the 1955 graduating class at William Chrisman High School. (Alas, no osmosis took place.)

I have editorial comments on “A Safe Haven”, if the Radoshes are interested; their editors could have done better by them, I think. Many of my quibbles are simply typos – leaving the “t” out of “with”, page 355 fifth line of text – but some omissions make probably unintended changes in meaning: pages 156 last line to 157 second line, “. . . Niles suggested that Truman say the fact that Bevin was not moral did ["not" omitted?] mean the United States had to be immoral.” Imagine the Ten Commandments with “not” omitted. And General Hoskins’s name is rendered “Hopkins” on page 17, third line of the sole complete paragraph. Don’tcha hate when that happens?

I’m planning to write a book, to be tentatively entitled “Not Investigating Obama: Know-nothings in the American Elite”. The nicht einbedeutende title is meant to refer to the lack of official investigation of Obama because of elitist fear and apathy. At least it does for the moment. Now they’ve got me doing it.

To win in 2012, Republicans must carry the fight to the head of the snake. They must challenge Obama’s very legitimacy. Even if Obama be technically eligible to the Office of President under U.S. Const. Art. II Sec. 1, thorough inquiry will show him to be eminently impeachable and probably an enemy agent.

Unless Obama’s identity, citizenship, eligibility and true allegiance are investigated in exquisite detail, showing Americans what he is, he will build such a corrupt machine incorporating tens of millions of illegal immigrant non-citizen voters, with billions of dollars of illegal Islamic and Comintern financing (of among other things KGB style disinformation, riots, demonstrations, outright bribery and purchase of votes and planting phony candidates in opposing parties) that nobody will be able to defeat him, and we will lose our Republic.

Those who were duped into voting for Obama in 2008 by the hoax that he was the son of a black Luo tribesman who made it with a white American chick will vote for him again if he runs in 2012. Subpoenae of his DNA and vital records, including his real, original birth certificate, will show it’s biologically impossible for him to be the son of a Negro father and a Caucasian mother. The “birth certificate” published 27 April 2011 is the amended birth certificate required to be created in the event of an adoption. The “parents” shown are adoptive parents. Genetic analysis of Obama’s DNA will disprove this “birth certificate”. The real, original birth certificate will almost certainly show Stanley Armour Dunham as Obama’s actual birth father and a native Hawai’ian wahine as his birth mother, from whom he inherits his warm mahogany complexion.

Obama’s actual birth parents were almost certainly both U.S. citizens, making him a natural born U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. But this status can be lost by the loss of U.S. citizenship altogether. It is possible and likely that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship by his acquisition and exercise of Indonesian citizenship. He could become a citizen of Israel without necessarily losing U.S. citizenship. Israel does not require a naturalized citizen to renounce all other citizenships. Indonesia does. Apparently Obama, who is so flaming smart, thought the risk was high enough that he made corrupt and seditious bargains to conceal his Indonesian citizenship.

Even if Obama technically retained his American citizenship, official examination of his birth and life would disclose that he fraudulently misrepresented his racial heritage, obstructed justice with regard to his citizenship status, and probably owes his true allegiance to the Comintern.

And the Jews, God save them for they do nothing to save themselves by sticking with Obama, dispelling the goyim myth that all Jews are smart. And apparently they are sticking by him. It’s not that Obama is anti-Semitic. He is just implementing the Comintern strategy of promoting global jihad to destroy western civilization. He is indifferent to the eradication of Israel and the extermination of its inhabitants. That’s just collateral damage. “To make an omelet . . . .” When the West is destroyed, the communist powers will conduct a well-deserved pogrom of Islam that will make the shoah, in terms of scale, look like a garden party. Billions of people, some living, some already dead, will be plowed under for fertilizer. You have to be there. But we won’t; we will be beyond caring. The Muslims, or course, are too stupid to perceive what’s in store. But the West doesn’t seem much smarter

I just pray Americans will wake up and demand congressional investigation of Obama, and his impeachment, if appropriate, as it probably will be shown to be. I hope it’s not too late. It could be.

I am beginning to think that Georgie Soros has been putting his money into a better class of troll- better educated, and more even tempered, but still pushing the moderate RINO/Independent line.
If those of us who are Conservative have to give up our principles to have a candidate elected, we were not, or at least are no longer Conservatives. What is so hard to understand about that?!

And Obama is the experiment that failed, as many, many, suspected and predicted.
If he was not intent on destroying America’s legacy, we could have sailed through his incompetence.
But, this is the result of a small minded, angry little juvenile that cannot accept adult responsibilities.

Perhaps a third party is the way to go….one based on fiscal onservatism and without any of the “social” policies of the far right. However this is not the time to give a very liberal Democrat administration another 4 years in office. Think of what obama has pushed through so far and think of the vacancies which will occur on the Supreme Court. Obama and the dems would equaste reelection to a blank check and the freedom to do whatever they want. His current stable of czars would triple in number as would his office staff. holder would probably get rid of the FBI,the CIA, and

Ron;
It just so happens that large corporations are America’s legacy. Ever hear of Ford Motor Company? How about Caterpillar? Boeing?
And if you check the disbursement of political funds from these and other companies, you’ll find where their allegiances lie. The Democrat Party receives an enormously disproportionate amount of the funds.
Try http://www.followthemoney.org/ for starters.
And what about the explosion in Federal employment since the Prince of Incompetence has been in office? Doesn’t this undermine competition for business?
There are too many references for me to list here; But, Milton Friedman is a good place to start.

to win in 2012 is to remember, and remember well, who kept the election in 2008 close, preventing an obama landslide, and who two years later won voters over enough to achieve an unprecedented big turnaround victory.

We cannot know what is actually discussed and planned in any power group that negotiates behind closed doors, corporate or government. But if we look squarely at what we do know of OUR Congress, Judiciary and Executive we must realise that vaunted “compromise” is habitually a get out of jail free card for so called Republicans. Republicans shall not be the saviours of our nation, because they cannot be, having been for so long complicit in the schemes of these socalled democrats – therefore hostage to them. So who/what’s left?

Just how do the Republicans and their fans think we, the American nation of self-governing via representation citizens, got into this present mess. It didn’t just happen, but is culmination of long term policies agreed to by Republicans to curry favour with the Democratic Party rulers, their claques in major media and universities within this past half century.

Didn’t any of the long-term “Republicans” have an inkling -that any housewife or small businessman would have had – of inevitable effects of their decisions? Easy to go along to get along manipulating US Law/Constitution and the economy of the USA over this past half century? And even before.

Even for the modern New Age, effects of fiddling with economic laws in the 1930s in the Depression in the USA and the end of the Weimar Republic in Germany a matter of record. Culminating in an international blood bath AND development of the present politicial collectivist idealogy inimical to the principles and ethos of the USA. Ideology ruinous of the nations in which it became the ruling ethos and machinery for control of populations. In virtually all examples culminating in slave states, some soft- Europe’s Welfare States,
some very hard – the Soviet Union and China. The development avoided by Founders of the USA in their protections of citizens via Law, documented in the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. Now decried by ill-informed journalists and interested university spokespersons, as legitimate foundation of the USA. These spokespersons avid members of those- for this past half century – in the process of undermining these ethical/legal pillars.

Despite –or because of — the appearance on the stage of a “white” knight/saviour/fuehrer/messiah?

Not only in now evident present dangers to the USA, but in the news from, once again, Europe. The failure of the European Union’s designers and progeny plans to federalise, disenfranchise populations of independent, sovereign peoples for central control from self-appointed elites and their heirs from Brussels and Strasbourg. Bribing peoples with other peoples’ money to live beyond their means. A sucker’s game which those debtor peoples decided too good a chance to pass and readily got into the game. And do those who designed and managed this fiasco admit they were in error. DO THEY? No, they take even more of other peoples money to cover over the failure of their schemes “for the good of the people”. We, Americans have been warned. We, Americans apparently trust the representatives of the people to care for the people more than their own self-aggrandisement, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Representatives,called either Republican or Democrat. What really is in a name…

And how do citizens of this nation answer to these destroyers. Do they bring class action suits for compensation as they do when damaged by private enterprise?, If you thinkt electing these persons into government offices again, again, and yet again, to continue unaccountably their damage is reasonable recompense for the damage they have done over long term,then maybe.

The tragedy of this fiasco developed over a long time, is the lack of self-respect of the most privileged citizenry in history, that they elect these people who clearly despise them into the honourable offices of their nation.

jojo…nice thesis! re your question ["Didn’t any of the long-term “Republicans” have an inkling..."]

Well of course they did! But here the some of ‘facts’ you omitted from your thesis. The ‘people’ have has chosen a two-party…two-ideology form of governance for a very long time. Likewise, the constitution thoroughly defines ‘representation’ NOT by a process in which a minority rules but rather a process in which a ‘majority’ rules with equal ‘representation’ of the minority. Don’t try defining equal representation of the minority to mean equal power!

By a majority representation as determined in the polling districts across America, according to the constitution, a ‘majority party’ and their ideology is seated in the government along with a minority party. Any problems with that so far?

The Tea Party folks are alway screaming and declaring themselves as the ardent supporters and defenders of the constitution and the will of the ‘people’….right?

For long periods in our history, the people, by a [majority] have chosen the Democrats and their ideology in government over that of the Republicans and their ideology. Now, lets assume that it is the congress’ seated by the majority that legislate on behalf of the people and the government…in control by the will of the majority. Is that unconstitutional?

I will leave you to determine how many times the people have voted for democrat control versus republican control.

The best any minority can do is exercise their constitutional ‘equal right to represent their minority of people’ in some manner of negoatiations and compromise to maybe get a sliver of something in their interest or benefit.

What would you advocate for change of this process?

What goes around eventually comes around as the old saying goes and is proven to be oh so true.

what republicans must do to win in 2012 is to remember, and remember well, who kept the election in 2008 close, preventing an obama landslide, and who two years later won voters over enough to achieve an unprecedented, big turnaround victory.